[Foucault-L] structuralism applied to visual arts and philosophy from 1770 to 2010

From: Elvin King <anaehtheana@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:09:02 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [Foucault-L] structuralism applied to visual arts and philosophy from 1770 to 2010

as foucault posed us a question.
"how did man become the object of knowledge?"
It seems subjectivity is a trap.
The more you define yourself as a subject, the more you need to know.
the only solution to this seems to me, a theory and analysis or the collection of main canons within culture
a relation to aesthetics and the analysis of forming of trees and mountains to art and comparions of visual imagery and construction of a diagram of cultural sensitivities. Here is the basics to such a schedual
if added, the evolution of technology, amount of cars in 1920, 1950 1970, 1990 2010, we have ourselves a curious evolution.
following mails in dutch and english

This is just the essence, but most expression is when you see sculptures and paintings evolve on time. people today think "myeah, duchamp is good, or delvoix is good, or this like, but it is not so chaotic, if you put everything on time, you see how radical evolution is and what it says about society.
*

Well, there is a few reasons.
first of all this division is the golden ratio for future projects, without this you can't get out. if you say something is beautiful, or good, or usefull, you must know what you mean by that. this can only be done with this division. the chaos of information renders words useless. you must have a schedual. the further you go back, the clearer it gets, the splitting of romantics to decadents symbolists opposing the neoclassicists fascists and modernists.
the genes of what is modern is in the nineteenth century, every teacher of literature knows this, problem is that no one wants to set the schedual and diagram, in chaos and making things "subjective" or putting in canons but still unrelated and not cohesive and to overview the general idea first, you get nothing more clear, in the future one will have to speak with three words, I... LIKE THIS, BECAUSE I ORIENT MYSELF TO THIS, and in it will be defined, how it orients to the other directions.
of these basic qualifications a language can be composed to include visual reality, moral and aesthetic fronts, (who more or less exist but oddly enough only within notions of entertainment, product, consumer, etc, to find a definiation of what in visual reality exists is to stop and overcome the system.)
the endless rabble about hail this or your are an apes ass if you like this has to stop.
SECONDLY
from this, you will also need to distill the future of, architecture, space travel, urbanisation, the world is stuck, everything evolved shut, as Foucault said, REGRESSION. you have to redefine.

if you used to say to people "thank God for daily bread" people would do that, if you now say "people think only of money" or "everything is subjective" then people seperate and carry on in the amorph machine and no revolution nor ideal is possible. that is a paradox beyond anything, not easy to solve, in fact foucault himself went reasonably insane as you can see in his last tapes, (me myself i was in hell for years) many philosophers and thinkers actually commit suicide over this, have done, even are in gigantic problems right now. do you know many modern artists that do not understand the irony and reasons of avant garde artists or surrealists are saying in their works intuitive things that they do not understand? if you make art trough inspiration of Freud? if you are alfred Kubin, then maybe you know reasonably well what its about, as the origin and creative discourse is still strong. But freud MAKES you into a amoebe of psychology. but if all
people craft grey forms, trauma's, fallus symbols, laughter, grey cages, cages with curtains in front, discarded shoe boxes, blackened, "the only one who walks beside me is my shadow" if you have an artist make this, does he understand where that comes from? they are right now very religious.

the idea the subjective and for everyone to repeat this in language, and in analysis etc, to cooperate on constructing skyscrapers and souvenirs has to become clear. en thus must be explained going down, from people who understand that, to usual common citizens it is a sort of "science of faith" that is, as established in art, as visually depicted. if kant disembowled perception it is quite clear todays skyscrapers are a radical example of, perhaps you could call it magick. the instant and amorph or synthetic of the common instant building also relates. of course you have to accept, and not unlogical to accept, that senses are part of touching, carving stone, putting roots in dirt with your bear hands.
the evolution of factories and industry and the evolution of psychiatry is in this the same disease, it grows bigger, because people believe in both. the sense as such could be configered as the limit in futurism, a fractal can be composed for instance where even on Mars or in giant spacecraft you would have artisan ateliers, not as a "hobby" which is a subjectivized concideration of crafts. the idea of product denominates the idea of craft, and craft becomes hobby.
this is all very much proof of Foucaults last ideas as were recorded and described in some documentaries.

if you know where all this comes from? where is then the subjectivity in all this? what is so subjective about people who found inspiration? solutions are the only subjective matters, but you see them NOWHERE, everyone analyses, writes papers, follows a tradition. this is a sign of ultimate stagnation. it is only possible to go OVER ALL, everyone pulling another side you get more traffic, more garbage, more incomprehension, more junk. if everything is subjective? why is not ten percent of buildings art nouveau? ten percent of buildings new neoclassic or art deco?? why no neoexpressionists neoimpressionists? i saw a few but, but they will be lost since the average evolution is total misunderstanding, boredome, it is a concensus of subjectiivity.
i would concidered, in the near future, people who work with old theories and copy without innovation, need to have an elite who works with new ideas forward, that people who work with ideas of others before understand that is not sure, to explain it in this way may help, in any case if it is NOT subjective, it would be pretty bizar to place it beside every other "opinion"
you will not get out.
this is a gateway to another age, a new synthesis of all ideas that were, and in essence you can get EVERY theory reversed.

I have seen a psychologica theory on a person who draws cats in more and more hallucinogneic forms, concidered a deterioration of his mental condition.
well, if you look at 200 year art you will see a reasonable deteriuration in psychology, its the same thing, with it i am not saying psychology says a lot of usefull things. especially not in any regular practice anywhere today.

One last line to explain, Michel foucault wonders "how did man become the object of knowledge?"
he knows, while he is declared subject
the ONLY solution is form, tone, rhime, verse, myth, allegory, so one will need at some time get all the books from and the formal language of the nineteenth century, even the spelling and old language, nobody reads this, but if you see how people write or talk about, mirrors, birds, nature, facial expressions, etc, if one does not learn that, one has no life, no social life, no art, no sentence, no agreement, a world,... that idea of subject has made people forget any form of visual organic reality, thats why they speak with infantile short cliche's, why there is entertaoinment before real content, why one goes from a provocation zombie to a fictuous aesthetic shoot 'm up zombie, with which no sensury information or with which the protest to the sensory deprevation as the artist intended is left behind. with semiotics you can find a few small things that actually say something. but in main course man has no more definition of reality. because he does
not know the tone of colors. his modern school books, are, indeed, dried up. read a 1950 copy and introduction of cellini autobioragphy, and read an introduction of a modern copy, you will find, the information is, as minimal and sterile and ill organic constructed as a skyscraper aluminum modern sliding. modernism, and the idea of culture and "time" in culture is an illusion. to know that, is to fall in all radical manner, in any previous aesthetic quality of the past, but definatly not remain in this breed of outdated nonsense and stagnation. it is only modern since the name is modernism, and by that they believe a hysteria of anything only trivially "new" but you can turn that around too. an old phone and an iphone, as a sensory gratification, it is not that new, it is inspired upon, and it is not that amazing or pleasurable, i believe when an organic life and the first phones arrived, with all gentle respect and organic words they had, in that age,
they could be moved, and have a language and a measure of peace for a few moments, to actually communicate to eachother about that. if you do not have that. as apart of the sweetness be the contrast to the equally related passion and sardonic pleasure, or revolution, or even sarcasm, if you do not adress the organics of language, you will forever despair in minimal silence of ideals as extacies, and by that, society and nature and the state of nature, will give you only two years to act, then the fish reserves are doomed to collaps, evolution will be disturbed, trees will be cut down and replaced by butter plants in fifteen to eighteen years, the easter island syndrome learns after that its cannibalism, though science also suggests, when the ocean starts rotting, a all suffocating poison will kill you off, maybe you will find yourself lucky. being alone eating at the last human alive before you, is not amusing. especially not, after so long a
entertainment and party and two yearly vacation.